But X, Y, and Z are all powers specifically delegated to Congress under Article I. Yes, the President may have signed the legislation to adopt X, Y and Z into law, but it’s still a Congressional power being exercised.
The President can’t say, “Congress, you’re leading us to disaster!” and seize this power just because he signed a bill; no more than Congress can push the President aside and give orders to generals in the field on the basis that Congress authorized a war which the President isn’t running well.
I think you mean that moral principles shouldn’t be ignored, as opposed to can’t be ignored. You may think that our elected representatives have a moral obligation to do something, but unless the 14th Amendment has a heretofore unknown clause which requires that Congress do the moral thing, it would seem that Congress isn’t compelled to care what you think about “moral obligations.”
I’m not quite following the question, either. If we run out of borrowing authority and the amount of money in the Treasury is very low, the Government won’t have the cash to pay some bills, whether they are worker pay, satisfaction of contracts for goods and services, or funds to transfer to state and local governments for Medicaid or whatnot.
So if the question is whether hitting the debt limit will require the Government to stop paying some bills because there won’t be enough money in the Treasury to pay them, such as paying contractors for something or another, the answer is yes.
It’s more complicated than that which is why I didn’t want to try to explain this issue to people who obviously weren’t receptive. A govt which is based on moral principles has to be seen to uphold those principles if its to maintain its legitimacy. Obviously there will always be weighing and balancing of competing interests, but the point is that the resolution of those conflicts has to be seen to be accomplished in a more or less fair and even handed manner on the whole. Certain principles like the concept of reliance inform these judgments. You literally can’t create a social welfare system like social security and then turn around and say that people have no legitimate expectation of continued benefits under that system and still maintain any kind of legitimacy. Certainly you can legally remove the social safety net but in doing so you violate a basic principle of fairness in the process and therefore any claim to legitimacy.
So when the United States dismantled its longstanding welfare system in the 1990s, did the country lose its legitimacy? Why or why not?
In my view, there’s no question that some people lost out when welfare basically went away; but that most Americans see the end of that system as increasing their confidence in the government.
That’s just silly. We were talking about interest payments and debt rollovers because those are what may cause a “default”. That article had nothing to do with that.
If you looked at the chart in that article, you can see that the revenue streams don’t support your argument. But if you want to ignore that, fine. I’m happy to throw the small fish back and go for the big one. But if you want to also focus on the distraction and pretend you haven’t lost the argument, well, that IS indeed silly.
The amount of money provided to states under the block grant program has not increased for 15 years (not even for inflation), the buying power of welfare recipients has decreased by something like 20% in the same time, the work requirements are greatly more restrictive than before, and the number of welfare recipients went from 5 million in 1995 to about 1.8 million today.
Based on the facts that welfare today gives recipients less money, the number of receipients has declined by 60%, and the eligibility rules are more restrictive, I would certainly say that the welfare program designed in the Great Depression has indeed gone away.
Keeping in mind the elimination of families and benefits from US welfare programs, did the United States break a moral obligation in passing this law, and has the United States lost legitimacy because of it? Why or why not?
But the point is that programs still exist for people who need them. I know people on those programs. If you really can’t work then you’re entitled to social security. So you see, you’ve completely missed the point - fairness.
You previously argued that Social Security benefits in specific, and social programs in general, can’t be reduced because of a moral obligation. I point out that welfare benefits have been greatly reduced over the last 15 years.
And your response is that welfare still exists, even in a reduced state, so therefore the moral obligation were upheld? Am I getting this right?
So if Social Security benefits are cut by 20%, and the number of recipients are cut by 60% – the same curtailment as welfare program received – is that acceptable under this “moral obligation” thing you’re talking about?
That is NOT what I argued and if you don’t get the point I’m not going to waste my time with you. I said that there will always be a weighing and balancing of competing interests. If you don’t understand what that means in the real world, then I can’t help you. The point is that it must be seen to be done fairly. Again, if you can’t grasp what that means in practice, I’m afraid you’re on your own.
You said this: “You literally can’t create a social welfare system like social security and then turn around and say that people have no legitimate expectation of continued benefits under that system and still maintain any kind of legitimacy.” Then I pointed out that millions of Americans lost welfare benefits, nearly 2 million more are collecting less in welfare benefits, and asked whether the US has maintained its legitimacy.
If you can’t defend what you write, why even write it in the first place? Why get all huffy when someone wants to challenge what you wrote?
Right, I didn’t say benefits couldn’t be reduced. I didn’t say qualification criteria couldn’t be adjusted or re-evaluated - did I? No, I didn’t. If you can’t grasp the meaning of my posts, you’re wasting my time.
Like all of the partisans here, you see what you want to see and are blind to anything that doesn’t agree with your version of reality. That’s why it’s pointless to even attempt to have an intelligent debate.
The logic in your posts is so incoherent that I can’t tell if you’re a left winger, a right winger, or what. I’m saying your “moral obligation” claim is half-baked no matter what clique or party you claim to belong to.
And I’m a Democrat, for what its worth.
But I notice that your posts have shifted from the substance of any argument to claiming, in careful words, that I’m too dumb to understand what you’ve posted. I call this out because if you have to attack me rather than better explain your posts, then you’re implicitly acknowledging that there’s no reasoned defense of what you’ve posted.
Obama can’t just pay the bondholders and cut all other spending by 20%. He is legally obligated to spend the money that Congress appropriated back when it approved the budget (by continuing resolution).
Are you Tea Partiers really claiming that the President has the authority to cut the budget unilaterally at his discretion? Despite the fact that the Constitution clearly states that all budget bills must originate in the House? If Obama can just cut spending whenever he likes, why can’t he raise taxes whenever he likes?
